City staff on Wednesday presented a package of proposed changes to Springfield’s code enforcement program, including a new administrative civil penalty (ACP) framework and updated provisions for dangerous, abandoned and derelict structures, and asked the City Council to send the changes to a public hearing on Jan. 22.

Charlie Kent, who led the presentation, said the ACPs would create a tiered fine structure with an appeals process and allow staff to scale penalties for repeat offenders. "Adding administrative civil penalties to Springfield's code enforcement toolbox will strengthen our ability to address violations efficiently, promote community well‑being, and reduce strain on city resources," Kent said.

The proposal would reorganize Section 5.002 of the Springfield Municipal Code to add: a clear prohibition on unsafe structures; temporary safeguards for imminent hazards; mandatory registration and maintenance plans for certain dangerous or vacant properties; a fee and waiver structure to encourage compliance; and explicit criteria for abatement, including demolition when required. Staff also proposed lien authority and a special fund for abatement costs so the city could recover enforcement expenses more directly.

Councilors pressed staff on several implementation details. Councilor Michelle Weber asked that the city track administrative expenses and recovery rates so the council could evaluate whether ACPs yield a net benefit. Kent said staff expect ACPs to improve collection compared with current civil prosecution, but he said ACPs are not intended to generate general fund revenue; the city’s aim is more timely cost recovery and faster compliance.

Jeff Paschal, Community Development director, said the staffing change associated with ACPs (an increase to 0.75 full‑time equivalent administrative support from 0.25) would be handled through internal reorganization and existing budgeted FTEs in the FY25 budget rather than by requesting new positions. Paschal said staff would pursue a mix of options—liens for chronic nuisance properties and more frequent, lower dollar penalties and payment plans for day‑to‑day violations—to increase recoveries beyond the roughly 10% recovery rate under the older process.

Council members clarified that enforcement would remain complaint‑driven: staff would not do citywide sweeps looking for violations. Kent and others said complaints will come from residents and public safety personnel (police and fire) when there is an imminent health or safety risk. The proposal moves hearings and technical appeals to a contracted hearings official rather than to council for routine appeals; council would still act when staff seeks to place a lien on property for unpaid abatement costs.

Council discussion also addressed owner/tenant responsibility. Staff said they will attempt to identify and cite the responsible party; if staff cannot identify a tenant, notices and citations start with the property owner but staff retain discretion to negate fines if later evidence shows the tenant was responsible.

Council members generally signaled support for moving the proposal to a public hearing. Kent said staff are preparing outreach and education materials to accompany the code changes. The council asked staff to return with measurable tracking (administrative costs, recovery rates and fund balances) so members can evaluate program performance after implementation.

The council set a public hearing date of Jan. 22 to consider the ordinance language and directed staff to return with final code language and outreach plans.